If you don't know what "Vista" means, shame on you. This thread isn't for you anyways.

If you don't feel like reading all this scroll down to the last one or two paragraphs to see what I am asking for. Read the bold print. Otherwise read ahead for background info.

OK, I'm in this Operating Systems class right? Now, we were originally going to have a 50 question midterm. However, two of our classmates (out of a class of five), did, on request, a very good presentation on hyperthreading and also touched on the related dual core technology. The prof had just asked them if they would research it since he didn't know alot about it himself. Out of the blue he told them they passed the midterm and didn't have to take it.

So, then he comes to us and says we can have the option of doing presentations too. Since I enjoy having access to books and papers when I do classwork as opposed to trying to remember stuff for a test, I chose a presentation.

The prof had a few topics we could pick from.
- Windows Vista: A Bright Future?
- Alternate Operating Systems to Vista in the Future (Basically which would be the best one to stand a chance)
- 32bit vs 64bit

I won the coin toss so I got to pick first. Vista immediately sounded like a best choice but I decided to wait for the other options. Alternate OS made me think of OSX immediately, but I use a Mac about as often as I've won a Halo 2 match, so I figured it wasn't a good topic.

32bit vs 64bit was also very interesting, because you have the different levels of, processor bits, OS bits, application bits, and then you can mix 'em like, does a 32-bit app run better or worse on a 64-bit chip than on a 32-bit one? Does a 64-bit app run better? Etc. But I chose to go with my original Vista choice because I still have a few small confusions in that area.

So. Since this is an Operating System class, I need to give a report on what has improved (or not) in the Windows kernel since XP or Server 2k3 or whatever. This means that I shouldn't include stuff like... IE's super new phishing filter. Although I can probably say IE is technically bultin to the OS now. So... there is a bit of grey area that I can take advantage of if I can't find enough good material otherwise.

Here's a small list I assembled in about an hour of searching. PLEASE correct me if you see any errors, and what I basically would like is if you can think of anything good to add to it. Specifically things that help developers, although things that help end users/IT managers etc work.

- Scrapped and rebuilt on the Windows Server 2003 codebase
- Built using new tools that cut down on the number of bug reports... less buggy OS is good. [The original article with these points was on the WSJ online but now it has become a pay service. Anyone have a mirror?]
- New UI effects don't matter. [That is, to the kernel improvments. It's only worth noting because MS is making a big deal out of it, it seems to me.]
- Security Center made by Vista team, expanded in Vista to check for n00b user settings (Shared C:\, weak password, etc)
- Anti-Spyware built-in. [A minor bullet point of the above]
- IE Phishing Protection. [A minor bullet point of the above]
- Windows Firewall enhancements (outbound blocking). [A minor bullet point of the above]
- User accounts are limited by default... Administrator programs will automatically prompt for a password and launch under that user (UAP). Other normally-Administrative tasks are hacked to be made per-user, such as HKLM and All Users profile.
- Modularization [More Windows features can be added/removed, such as WinFS]
- Rebuilt TCP/IP stack with integrated IPv6, resistance against DoS, portable.
- Search, WinFS. Documents orgainized by "Virtual Folders". Full text search and file properties can be extended by developers.
- Restart Manager, Windows can close applications using files it needs to update instead of rebooting the whole computer. Or Windows saves application states and reboots the computer to it's previous state.
- Windows Error Reporting available to developers.
- XML (XAML) apps. Desktop and Web based. [XAML apps can run with restricted privileges in a sandbox mode. Two lines are changed in the config file to switch the app between building for the desktop or for the web. Also I will note that only IE supports this feature. I suppose this makes sense, but we will see if MS makes it easy for developers like Mozilla and Opera to incorporate XAML support into their products.]

I basically checked my memory and the MSDN Vista pages for this info.

In the end I will compile a 20-minute "semi-professional PowerPoint Presentation" (prof's words) out of all this. You will get my thanks, and the PPT as a souvenier. >.>

I am never very enthused about installing a new OS. OSs should come in short-duration updates like Linux. I don't like Microsoft's strategy, which is merely for marketing and not convenience.

Uh...what?

They're releasing a brand new OS, with many new features...It's going to be like switching from Mac OS9 to Mac OSX.

Missing poll option: Vista is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Uh...what?

They're releasing a brand new OS, with many new features...It's going to be like switching from Mac OS9 to Mac OSX.[/QUOTE]

Dont tell me you buy into that marketing bull****. "Vista" will be the same old garbage, just with a different coat of paint.

Well you enjoy your open source... hey someone post a link to a java video player... "YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM IS NOT SUPPORTED!"

[QUOTE=DJ Insaneo]Well you enjoy your open source... hey someone post a link to a java video player... "YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM IS NOT SUPPORTED!"[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I was too busy calculating my server's latest uptime... 3 months?


AAAANYWAY:

I won't be getting Vista as soon as it arrives. But I'll definately have a look at it, and see what's new. I'll be reserving my judgement on the quality of the OS until after I have used it for a bit, and that I find it is worth upgrading.

I love these convos touche my friend touche.

Where's the option for "I'm not updating."?

Because I'm not.....

It's not marketing bull****. There's tons of new features for Vista, though since MS is too slow, most of them will be coming out after Vista is actually released. It's not just another NT Kernel pretty looking OS, it's quite different in the way in handles files, if nothing else (virtual folders).

Why argue? YOU ALL KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT AND THE OTHER IS WRONG! DUH!
stfu already

Damn straight! I still use Windows 2000 Pro SP4!

I only started using XP Pro SP1a at home earlier this year. meh.

I could go back to 2k SP4 and not miss much in XP.

Didn't MS decide not to include the WinFS File System with Vista right away, but rather release it later, because it was taking longer than planned to complete? Or did that change?

I remember reading that somewhere...

I'm still not sure if I'm going to update to Vista or not... I've got both the 64 and 32 Bit editions of the first beta, but right now I don't have a key, but should in 5 to 10 days... can't wait.

I used to use 2000 SP4, but I didn't care for it... it was a slower startup, and had troubles with my touchpad and keyboard on my laptop.

Now I'm running the 64-Bit version of XP Pro, still having some troubles with the video card, but that's because I couldn't find a driver that worked for it (It's an nVidia GeForce GO 440, and none of nVidia's drivers recognized it)

You have to get those drivers from your laptop manufacturer.

Yeah, I'm including WinFS anyways cause it's relevant. At least I think so.

Got a couple more things from a friend, which is more than YOU GUYS have given me >:(.

- WinSAT. Allows programs (games) to pick best settings depending on your hardware.
- MVDDM. Updating display drivers without restarting. Hardware accellerated desktop. Time-sharing. Virtual Memory support.



1 or 2, depending on if you hate Vista or not.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]You have to get those drivers from your laptop manufacturer.[/QUOTE]
Yeah... I tried there first, but they didn't have a 64-Bit driver.

Plus I found other people who had gotten it to work with nVidia drivers, just older versions, but none worked for me.

Unless you're doing REALLY high end stuff, 64 bit is almost a waste of time and effort. How much faster, and how much more work for the processors, is 64 bit going to be? Totally unworth the effort, methinks.

However, I will use Vista if I get a new machine, or I can get ahold of it under inexpensive terms.

The extent to which DRM is incorporated in Vista might be interesting to check out. That seems to have been the most controvercial part of it so far.

Until I get a completely new computer, which I don't see happening for quite some time, I'll stick with Windows 2000 SP4 thank you. I won't upgrade until I'm pretty much forced to.

I won't buy that thing unless it becomes absolutely must.

I dunno. I don't see any reason to right now. If or when I get a new computer it will probably have Vistahorn or whatever.

[QUOTE=The Mega-ZZTer]Also I will note that only IE supports this feature. I suppose this makes sense, but we will see if MS makes it easy for developers like Mozilla and Opera to incorporate XAML support into their products.][/QUOTE]

Well, I guess MS needs to hire more lawyers, if they don't allow other developers to easily do the same thing...

I'm hoping by the time Vista comes out, Linux will be more suitable for desktop use. It's fine for people like me but I still don't feel comfortable installing it on the computers used by the rest of my family - and I likely never will at this rate.

Not when it ups the memory limit from 4GB to 16EB (1EB = 1024PB, 1PB = 1024TB). Considering many computers already have 1 or 2gb of memory it won't take long before some users (gamers, etc) grab 64bit chips and 64-bit versions of games just so they can use more memory.

[QUOTE=The Mega-ZZTer]Not when it ups the memory limit from 4GB to 16EB (1EB = 1024PB, 1PB = 1024TB). Considering many computers already have 1 or 2gb of memory it won't take long before some users (gamers, etc) grab 64bit chips and 64-bit versions of games just so they can use more memory.[/QUOTE]
Athlon 64 chips only use 48-bit addressing and with memory pages 32-bit Windows can already address more than 4 GB of memory.

Edit: The biggest drawback to 64-bit is the amount of cache space. It takes twice as much memory, twice as much bandwidth and twice as much cache to do the same job with a 64-bit application as it does in 32-bit code. Frankly it's not worth the effort - not unless you're using the system for scientific applications. In the gaming world, 64-bit is in the same boat as dual core.

In my opinion the best thing AMD/Intel can do is migrate a variant of THUMB to x86-64. It allows you to use 64-bit instructions and data but the more common ones are packed down into 32 or 16 bits. It saves energy, too.

Ultimate edition FTW because you used "FTW" which if i send a random tell in SWG to most people on Bria, they say oh, watup mac?

I hate you.

You're not alone.

I know im going to stick to Win2k SP4 and Mac OS 10.4, the sooner 10.5 is our and rosestta is out, im going to throw my PC out the window, oh look I throw Windows out the Window...

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You're not alone.[/QUOTE]You are never alone.

Ahh very interesting.

But unfortunately, I'm not doing my presentation on 64bit.

I NEED SOME MORE MATERIAL PEOPLE. :p

Hmm I suppose I could work the poll results in there somewhere.

Having been forced to use Macs for the past 6 weeks, I deem this to be the absolute worst decision you would ever make in your entire life.

Macs are just plain... well... suck.

They crash for no specific reason, they're slow, their networking software is hideously complex and unstable (losing network in the middle of a photoshop project + network photoshop license = frozen MAC), they're slower than the PC counterparts, the huge LCDs have horrible refresh rates, the mouse sucks, you can't maximize a window, etc etc.

The only NICE thing OSX has is the spotlight, and it seems windows will be sporting this sort of fast searching in the next windows version.

Just like my aarogance about refusing to update from Windows 98SE to XP, I'm not changing untill I get the new computer that comes with it.

Even though I'm much happier now with XP than 98, and I'm almost sure I'd be the same way with Vista, I'm definately not paying for the change.

[QUOTE=The Mega-ZZTer]1 or 2, depending on if you hate Vista or not.[/QUOTE]
One or two won't apply to me at all since from here out I'm building every PC I want. Therefore it won't come with a computer. =P

Hmm... Can OEM Windows be shipped only with a full system? Does the EULA say something like that? Or could it be got just with some component?

Where's "I'll use it as soon as Microsoft adopts a Unix core" option?

Yeah, I'm an egotistical Linux user.

I might put it on Geoff for Izzy, but I'll wait until some of you lot have said it's ok first. As for me and my new baby, OSX is fine

Except the NT "core" (read: Kernel, are you sure you use Linux?) is more feature-rich. NT could use a more strict security model and it's getting one in Vista. NT supports asymmetrical I/O which UNIXes don't, and as nice as the UNIX security model is - it's the main reason gaming on the platform is so impractical and why it takes so long to get new video drivers.

Plus UNIX uses a monolithic kernel, while Windows uses a microkernel. They're completely different designs.

And Linux is the fastest-performing kernel at multithreading and thread creation, but if Microsoft were to use a UNIX-like base they'd most likely be using Xenix which is slow and clumsy.

I'll only get it when I buy a new system (instead of building it myself) and it's had lots of good reviews.

I'm currently running XP and 2000 but I still prefer 98 over xp.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Having been forced to use Macs for the past 6 weeks, I deem this to be the absolute worst decision you would ever make in your entire life.

Macs are just plain... well... suck.

They crash for no specific reason, they're slow, their networking software is hideously complex and unstable (losing network in the middle of a photoshop project + network photoshop license = frozen MAC), they're slower than the PC counterparts, the huge LCDs have horrible refresh rates, the mouse sucks, you can't maximize a window, etc etc.

The only NICE thing OSX has is the spotlight, and it seems windows will be sporting this sort of fast searching in the next windows version.[/QUOTE]

Well either the mac you are using sucks cause its 50 years old, or some one hasnt updated the software.

I use Photoshop, Quark, Indesign, Final Cut, Filemaker Pro, and a whole load of other software on my Mac all day and it never crashes, I bet you were this mac is in a PC based company with little or no IT support for Apple Mac, and the PC Techies dont know whats going on.
The networking is the best I have seen in 10.4, and the easiest, I dont have to restart every time I change the networking preferances, unlike windows which needs to be restarted every time you change work group or ip.

Ive been using Macs for 8 years along side Windows and I find my self using my PC less and less.
I have to deal with people all day that asume that because something is different to Windows and its not the normal way of doing things it is therefore rubbish, My name is Paul, and i Work for Apple Computer.